|
ElectroSensitivity - Support ESS. |
|
Media reporting and old news for you Click here for expose by Martin J Walker of lobby bias and bad science reporting in The Guardian 
In order for claims to true knowledge to be capital ‘S’ for ‘Scientific’, two things are essential
and we apologise to those for whom this is the equivalent of ‘teaching grandmother to suck eggs’.
1 It must have a declared source to which anyone can refer to check it, usually known as ‘references’. It has
to be a real claim made by a named somebody at a time and place, not woolly airy-fairy “somebody once told me that…”.
It must be a fact in common parlance.
2 To cut out the rubbish it has to be put out in an available, understandable and testable form, NOT “It’s
true because God/the Koran/the Bible/even Einstein”says so. Those may be different types of truth but are not scientific
claims. Science must be publicly offered so as to be judged by others, usually other scientific experts qualified in that
field. Generally in the past it was by publication in a ‘learned journal’ and “peer-reviewed”
as it is called.
Nowadays the internet saves time and Google is a wonder machine for retrieving material and checking facts, anyone can do
it, you plug in the scientist’s name and in 0.30 of a second a list of publications as long as a gorilla’s hairy
arm grabs you by the cranium.
Plug in ‘philosophy of science’ and a lot more than the above two essentials will pour out, but you
must have at least them to be serious at the start.
Then the arguments begin,…is it good science? and so on, and on… and on. Especially if big, big bucks in the
millions and gadzillions are involved, The possible health effects of powerlines, microwaves, radars, radio and TV station towers, cell sites and cell phones
are of serious concern to many people round the world. The Environmental Health evidence is that the effects are real. Y
The Sensory Perspective 'detect-protect' website now has the entire range of common spooky microwave RF sounds you can click
into and listen to. On Google there are many importers. You can hear the stuttering of a mobile phone link and the pneumatic
drill pulsing of a Tetra (emergency services) mast.
The natural cosmic microwave sound is a gentle hiss. The human species has evolved with this constant companion. If you can
hear anything more than a gentle background hiss with a microwave/electrosmog detector, you will be hearing man-made microwave
pollution, that has only been in existence for about 20 years, and that our biology has not adapted to.
Concerned scientists believe that this man-made 'extra' is likely to be biologically hazardous, affecting all our bodily systems,
making us more vulnerable to cancers, endocrine and neurological changes, thought and mood disorders, and other illnesses
brought on by such radiation.
People vary in their susceptibility. Some sensitive people, those whose bodies tend to have allergic reactions to the environment,
will react to very low levels of audible microwaves. The louder the sound, more people are likely to be affected. The symptoms
you experience will depend on what part of your body is most sensitive. Different people are likely to experience different
health effects.
The sensitivity of new versions of listening devices has been set to about 0.03 V/m of pulsing microwave radiation. This guarantees
that the user will hear the electrosmog surrounding them that is around, or above, the 0.05 V/m threshold that is being repeatedly
demonstrated [see references] as a level above which adverse health effects are being reported in significant numbers of people.
We suggest that a detector is normally used at full volume, when a gentle background hiss will be heard in the absence of
any man-made pulsing microwave radiation from any source. Close to masts, DECT telephones, wireless LANs and other emitters
it will probably be be necessary to turn the volume down until the device is turned off or microwave shielding is installed.
The aim should be to just hear the gentle hiss when the acoustic device is set to full volume.
Remember, if you hear any man-made noise, you may be affected. The louder it is, the more likely you will be affected and
the worse the symptoms may be.
For electric fields you need an electric field meter measuring volts per metre. "Locate sources of electric fields
(such as lamp cords, clocks, electric blankets) which may pose health problems if too close to people and animals. Have peace
of mind and confidence in knowing where this body penetrating pollution is coming from, and how powerful it is, so you can
protect yourself and loved ones. Instruction booklet and 9V battery included. One year limited warranty. Made in U.S.A. says
the website offering them" click less emf Good scientific common sense from the other side of the world from a cooly rational scientist, a genuine expert on
this issue, listened to by his government Dr Neil Cherry
Dr Neil Cherry (1946 -2003) held the position of Associate Professor of Environmental Health at Lincoln University, New Zealand.
(Assoc Prof (NZ) = Full Prof (US)). Professor Cherry had listened to these concerns of the community and spent many years
and a great deal of his own salary income to travel around the world visiting universities and laboratories to collect the
published papers and discuss as much as possible with the original researchers to make sure his evidence and conclusions are
closely correct.
It is highly likely that Professor Cherry was the first Environmental Health scientist in the world to research and publish
strong evidence that:
"Electromagnetic fields and radiation damage DNA and enhance cell death rates and therefore they are a Ubiquitous Universal
Genotoxic Carcinogen that enhances the rates of Cancer, Cardiac, Reproductive and Neurological disease and mortality in human
populations. Therefore there is no safe threshold level. The only safe exposure level is zero, a position confirmed
by dose-response trends in epidemiological studies."
and
Solar and Geomagnetic Activity is a Natural Hazard causing serious human health effects through modulation of extremely small
natural electromagnetic radiation (0.1pW/cm²), the Schumann Resonance signal, that is detected by the human brains and alters
the melatonin output which causes modulation of many human health effects including cancer, cardiac, reproductive and neurological
diseases and mortality.
The robust scientific evidence that justifies these claims is available on this web site on the 'Serious Science page above.
You can read the background of Professor Cherry here. For his own website 'down under' whistle round the planet to Dr Neil Cherry
To learn more you can look at the topics and the introduction to the abstracts in the document purchase part of this website.
Tragically we have lost Dr Cherry and at such a young age. We put him in early on this page out of our respect and in mourning.
Returning to our drift, the following is necessary at some early point:
Scientific Terms must be agreed, here we are talking about:
Electromagnetic Fields,
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
For reasons just mentioned above we can go into later, EHS is claimed to be 'not scientifically proven' by our health
and protection agencies, the HPA and NRPB, so a lot of medical authorities are waiting on them. This is curious because it
was known about by the military fifty years ago (see Barrie Trower), they issued warnings about 'radiation sickness' as an
occupational hazard for radar operators and electronic technicians with a list of symptoms identical to the one we issue today.
Yet now there is a need to 'prove it exists'. It is very difficult to 'prove a positive' in this way, anyone wishing
to be disputatious can produce all manner of possible alternatives or conditions as has happened with tobacco/cancer and asbestos/osis
to name but two. The Lancet, the highly respected UK medical journal has
published 2 papers on the subject of cell phone safety, as well as an accompanying editorial.
"The deceptively simple question, much loved by television and radio interviewers, "Is it safe?" is the scientist's banana
skin. A Nobel prize awaits the person who first designs an experiment to show that anything is "safe"." NO-ONE,
no responsible person, not a government minister, nor a civil servant nor a scientist will stand up and declare this technology
is safe, they cannot. They only talk of being below spurious safety limits. Really we should follow 'the precautionary principle'
as Sir William Stewart's report recommended.
We do know there are health effects and have while I worked for ES-UK talked and listened to over 500 individual cases
in our data-bank, and Sweden has 285,000 sufferers recognised by officialdom and the government.
These individuals know all too well from personal experience how EMFs are zapping them, and it hurts.
If we are all crackpots, then so are all the scientists, the universities and the learned publications quoted here, all up
the creek without a paddle. This is the victim’s side of the scientific debate here on this website saying EHS is
real, and here is the scientific evidence.
Because of this vacuum over recognition and to protect EHS sufferers, we ES-support are here summarising this questioning
side of scientific developments, probing the ‘Its all perfectly safe’ propaganda craftily slipped out,
usually by inference. We collect it in the UK and from around the world. We supply references and convenient links to find
out more detail for those who care to.
ALL this here is proper, recognised, IGNORED science by those who do not want to hear what it says, for as Upton Sinclair
famously said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when getting his salary depends on his not understanding it”
1) Professor Gerard Hyland,
First up is Professor Gerard Hyland, a witness from Warwick University who has described the human brain and nervous system
as an “electromagnetic instrument of exquisite sensitivity”. Gerard Hyland is explicit. “[If
you ask] whether there is an established risk to human health from exposure to Tetra (mobile mast) radiation, the answer is
undoubtedly “yes”.’ He adds: ‘If there were the same degree of uncertainty over a food or medicine,
the government would never have licensed it. The problem is that while food and drugs are subject to a stringent and lengthy
(but by no means infallible) testing regime, technologies like genetic engineering, nanotechnology and Tetra undergo much
laxer scrutiny.”
See Dr. Gerard Hyland's short paper by typing 'radiation' in the search engine of the Caroline Lucas MEP website then read the paper on 'How GSM and TETRA Masts
can affect your health...etc' Also "How Exposure to Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans It explains the science of the bioeffects that can arise from radiation levels found around base station installations.
It's a good piece to give people who are just starting to ask questions about possible radiofrequency radiation (RF) health
effects.
Memorandum submitted by Dr. G. J. Hyland, Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK and International Institute
of Biophysics, Neuss-Holzheim, was entered in the Minutes of Evidence of the UK House of Commons Select Committee Third Report,
addressing specifically the adverse health effects of radiofrequency emissions.
He is also reported in ‘The Economist’ Sept 2004
2) Professor Robert Santini et al
This is published in ‘ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE ’Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 4149, 2003.
It is also on the internet in pdf format if you Google.
Health effects documented by Professor Santini include:
“ The results that were obtained underline that certain complaints are experienced only in the immediate vicinity of
base stations (up to 10 m for nausea, loss of appetite, visual disturbances), and others at greater distances from base stations
(up to 100 m for iritability, depressive tendenciesl, lowering of libido, and up to 200 m for headaches, sleep disturbances,
feeling of discomfort). In the 200 m to 300 m zone, only the complaint of fatigue is experienced significantly more often
when compared with subjects residing at more than 300 m or not exposed (reference group). For seven of the studied symptoms
and for the distance up to 300 m, the frequency of reported
complaints is significantly higher (P<0.05) for women in comparison with men”.
So there are a few documented scientific facts the phone companies do not tell you. Live near a phone mast for ‘lowering
of libido’, or sex-drive, as its put more vulgarly. Now that would make a great advertising theme would it not?
3) Professor Olle Johansson
The dangers of malign and industry-protecting influence being brought to bear mean even such a respected academic as Professor
Johansson, with decades of high quality work on his record, is not being allowed by the present head of the radiation section
of the World Health Organisation, Dr Mike Repacholi at WHO, to include his revised summary in the published record of their
Electrical Hypersensitivity workshop in Prague in 2003. It simply summarises Swedish government policy of treating EHS sufferers
as handicapped, and needing all the assistance and benefits for being so, not what some want to hear.
Really good scientific value is offered by the Karolinska Health Institute of Stockholm University, where incidentally 40%
of Swedish doctors are trained, this is NOT a backwoods institution. Professor Olle Johansson, a renowned dermatologist or
skin (dermis) specialist has sent us a list of 75 published peer-reviewed scientific papers. They are available on
our website at www.electrosensitivity.org.uk under ‘Science and References’. Here below is part of his introduction
to explain why they considered this an important health area for objective scientific examination:
“An ever increasing number of studies have clearly shown various biological effects at the cellular level of electromagnetic
fields, including powerfrequency and radiofrequency ones as well as microwaves. Such electromagnetic fields are present in
your everyday life, at the workplace, in your home and at places of leisure.
Recently, a new category of persons with a physical impairment (electrohypersensitivity; EHS) has been described in the literature,
namely those that claim to suffer from subjective and objective skin- and mucosa-related symptoms, such as itch, smarting,
pain, heat sensation, redness, papules, pustules, etc., after exposure to visual display terminals (VDTs), mobile phones,
DECT telephones, as well as other electromagnetic devices. Frequently, symptoms from internal organ systems, such as the heart
and the central nervous system, are also encountered.
Persons claiming such adverse skin reactions after having been exposed to computer screens or mobile phones very well could
be reacting in a highly specific way and with a completely correct avoidance reaction, especially if the provocative agent
was radiation and/or chemical emissions -- just as you would do if you had been exposed to e.g. sun rays, X-rays, radioactivity
or chemical odours. The working hypothesis, thus, early became that they react in a cellularly correct way to the electromagnetic
radiation, maybe in concert with chemical emissions such as plastic components, flame retardants, etc., something later focussed
upon by Professor Denis L. Henshaw and his collaborators at Bristol University”
This ‘toxic combination’ issue is also covered in great depth in Gunni Nordström's new book "The Invisible
Disease - The Dangers of Environmental Illnesses caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions" (O Books, 2004,
ISBN 1-903816-71-8). We review this on our website too www.electrosensitivity.org.uk
4) Professor Denis L Henshaw
NRPB Consultation Document Issued 1 May 2003
Proposals for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0 – 300 GHz)
Comments from Professor Denis L Henshaw
H H Wills Physics Laboratory,University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TL
The review of health effects in the Consultation Document of exposure to power frequency EMFs needs to be improved in a number
of ways.
Overall, the evidence supports the hypothesis of a causal chain of events in which exposure to magnetic fields affects the
efficacy of melatonin in protecting the haemopoietic system either in utero or in childhood, increasing the risk of leukaemia.
This hypothesis could also apply to other cancer and non-cancer adverse health outcomes associated with magnetic field exposures.
The health effects of exposure to time-weighted average power frequencymagnetic fields above normal neighbourhood levels,
in the range 0.2 to 1.6 µT, are potentially large and may therefore be significant in terms of public health policy. In the
case of new fixed installations, some countries have already introduced strict limits on exposure, based on considerably less
evidence of adverse health effects than is now apparent.
Similar measures should be adopted as a matter of urgency if the UK is not to be seen as insensitive to the health effects
of those involuntarily exposed to elevated levels of magnetic fields. Ideally, the aim should be to restrict exposures
to typical neighbourhood levels, around 0.05 µT. Furthermore, in the case of existing installations, notably high voltage
powerlines in the vicinity of houses, hospitals, schools, nurseries and children’s play areas, a timetable of remedial
measures should be introduced.
We are honoured to have Professor Henshaw as a trustee of ES-UK. He has published much other work.
This up to date report is from another scientist, part of the WHO EHS research programme who presented at the Prague conference:
5) Professor Norbert Leitgeb
'Correlation found between mobile phone masts and sleep disturbances'
Medical News Today 29 Apr 2005
"We have found that people who are very electrosensitive in the evening, do not sleep well in the night". Prof. Dr. Norbert
Leitgeb of the Technical University of Graz in Austria told a journalist of the ‘Grazer Woche’. "This could
indicate, that mobile phone masts and other sources of radiofrequency radiation indeed have a negative influence on the well
being of many persons."
His saying this refers to the result of a pilot study, meant to verify the design of a larger investigation to come. Nevertheless
the result is spectacular, Leitgeb confirms. Of nine test persons the more electrosensitive appeared to sleep much better
when protected from radiofrequency radiation. Leitgeb does not find this is proof yet. The upcoming research has to confirm
the relationship between sleeping quality, electrosensitivity (50 Hz) and the load of radiofrequency radiation by GSM masts,
DECT wireless telephones, WLAN wireless networks and other sources. The research will not take place in a laboratory though,
but at the homes of twenty people throughout Austria. Results are expected in the beginning of 2006.
Causal relationship:
In an article in the magazine ‘Bioelectromagnetics’, Leitgeb describes the existence of electrosensitivity.
It is proven that some persons have a heightened sensitivity for electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields. "Though
there has not been established a causal relationship yet, the symptoms of some persons are thus so severe, that they leave
their homes and jobs and try to find release in an environment with less 'electromagnetic pollution'. These persons have a
serious problem and need to get help. To find proof of a causal relationship is not just a scientific interest, but the problem
also has a socio-economic aspect", says Leitgeb.
UMTS mobile phone masts
In The Netherlands there is a growing stir about the placement of UMTS mobile phone masts. Also the GSM mobile phone masts,
DECT wireless telephones and WLAN wireless networks are suspected of causing 'radiofrequency radiation sickness'. A
symptom is the heightened electrosensitivity to low frequency electric and magnetic fields (50 Hz), but the sickness also
would have other symptoms like sleeping disturbances, palpitations of the heart, high blood pressure, tinglings, concentration
and remembrance distortions, dizziness, burning skin, tinnitus, eye problems, lack of energy and many more. In The Netherlands
a study by TNO confirmed the correlation of cognitive functional deviations and the radiation of GSM and UMTS. Moreover, the
radiation of UMTS appeared to cause tinglings and dizziness.
Sources:
1. Grazer Woche, 'Studie: Handymast stört Schlaf' by Dieter Demmelmair
2. Elektrosmognews of 18 Jan. 2005
3. IZGMF Meldungen 'Epros Schlafstudie zwischen Sensation und Dementi', 21 Jan. 2005
4. Answers by N. Leitgeb to questions by Frans van Velden, e-mail, 21 Jan. 2005
5. Electrosensibility and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Bioelectromagnetics 24:387-394 (2003)
Author: Frans van Velden
Starmail - am Montag, 2. Mai 2005, 18:54 - Rubrik: Wissenschaft zu Mobilfunk
The above was downloaded from an e-mail supplied by the above.
All this science, which contradicts the idea that this technology is safe and harmless is easily available, but the government
agencies do nothing to help these sick people, we are the ONLY national organisation, run on a shoestring, trying to assist.
With a 200 million pound budget the NEW so-called ‘Health Protection Agency’ and the NRPB not only do nothing
they say publicly 'there is no evidence' but actually refer sick inquirers on to us as the place to get help.
It makes us proud, but we have just 5K to work with!
OK, moving on after that little moan on behalf of the EHS.
Word reaches us frequently from the Emerald Isle where sister groups are campaigning, the Irish Electromagnetic Radiation
Victims Network (IERVN) and ‘ehsisreal’ keep us up to date with, for instance, this report from Irish doctors:
6) Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA),
By Mark Prigg Science Correspondent, Evening Standard 9 February 2005
The research, by the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA), was carried out on 16 people who had complained of symptoms
from using mobile phones and were particularly sensitive to electromagnetic radiation.
The 16 were studied over several months. They were examined by doctors, filled in detailed questionnaires charting their use
of mobile phones, and underwent medical tests including blood and liver analysis.
It was found 13 suffered symptoms including nausea, headaches and dizziness which researchers believe are a clear indication
of radiation. IDEA chairman Dr Philip Michael said:
"This is causing disabilities in a large section of the population. We are working on funding for a far larger study which
will use blind testing to prove beyond doubt that mobile phones are responsible, but we believe the evidence is now overwhelming.
These problems can get very difficult to deal with - we had one person in our study who was basically confined to their house
because of the symptoms."
He advised anyone suffering from the symptoms the study describes to limit the time they spend on their mobile, and to try
to stay away from mobile phone masts.
The research was this week presented to a select committee of Irish MPs, who, it is hoped, will back plans for further research.
Other experts in the field said they were not surprised by the results of the study. Dr Michael Maier of Imperial College
said more research was needed, adding:
"There is so much anecdotal evidence I think more findings along these lines are inevitable. The biggest problem is that it
is hard to measure any effects as people use their phones so differently.”
Granted the ‘Evening Standard’ is not a scientific publication but we give easily enough detail here for checking
the references and Mark Prigg a reputable science correspondent quotes both researchers and identified commentators at length.
It saves you the trouble. IDEA is made up of 30 leading Irish doctors, and is affiliated with the World Health Organisation.
It is part of a group awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 1985. Members include Dr Patrick Hillery, the ex-President of
Ireland and an EU commissioner. Respectable enough to not be ignored you might think.
7) Dr Graham Blackwell
Another independent British scientist who has given much thought to this issue, as his family is personally affected, is Dr
Graham Blackwell who issued this summary earlier this year expressing his disdain for the attitudes of those whitewashers
protecting an unsafe technology:
Please find the following summarised scientific evidence of ill-health effects from phone mast microwave emissions.
1. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.
Santini et al.
Pathol Biol (Paris) [Pathologie Biologie (Paris)] 2002; 50: 369 – 73
Found significant health effects on people living within 300 metres of mobile phone base stations.
Conclusions include the recommendation:
“… it is advisable that mobile phone base stations not be sited closer than 300meters to populations”
2. Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO)
Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment,and Health, Welfare
and Sport
“Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On Well Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects
With and Without Subjective Complaints”
(September 2003)
Found significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of internationally-recognised criteria (including headaches,
muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness etc) from 3G mast emissions well below accepted ‘safety’ levels (less than
1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines). Those who had previously been noted as ‘electrosensitive’ under a scheme in
that country were shown to have more pronounced ill-effects, though others were also shown to experience significant effects.
3. THE MICROWAVE SYNDROME FURTHER ASPECTS OF A SPANISH STUDY
1) Public Health Department Salzburg, Austria
Presented at an International Conference in Kos (Greece), 2004
This study found significant ill-health effects in those living in the vicinity of two GSM mobile phone base stations. They
observed that:
“The strongest five associations found are depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration
and cardiovascular problems.”
As their conclusion the research team wrote:
“Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for levels not higher than 0.02 V/m for the sum total,
which is equal to a power density of 0.0001 µW/cni2 or 1 µW/m2, which is the indoor exposure value for GSM base stations proposed
on empirical evidence by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg in 2002.”
4. INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCER NEAR A CELL-PHONE TRANSMITTER STATION.
Ronni Wolf MD1, Danny Wolf MD21. The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine,
Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.
The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.
This study, based on medical records of people living within 350 metres of a long-established phone mast, showed a fourfold
increased incidence of cancer generally compared with the general population of Israel, and a tenfold increase specifically
among women, compared with the surrounding locality further from the mast.
5. Naila Study, Germany (November 2004)
Report by researchers (five medical doctors)
Following the call by Wolfram König, President of the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency for radiation protection),
to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our
study was to examine whether people living close to cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking
ill with malignant tumors.
The basis of the data used for the survey were PC fi1es of the case histories of patients between the years 1994 and 2004.
While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1.000 patients were evaluated for this study, which was completed
without any external financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form of a register.
The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients
who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the cellular transmitter site, which bas been
in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years
earlier.
In the years 1999-2004, i.e. after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting
cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila
outside the area.
NOTE: These are the only studies known of that specifically consider the effects of masts on people. All five of these studies
show clear and significant ill-health effects. There are no known studies relating to health effects of masts that do not
show such ill-health effects.
In this respect, any statement by industry or official sources that claims (or suggests) that:
(a) There is no evidence of ill-health effects from masts;
or
(b) The overwhelming evidence is that masts do not cause ill-health effects;
is completely and blatantly untrue.
Dr Grahame Blackwell
From: "Dr Grahame Blackwell" blackwells@tiscali.co.uk Subject: Fw: References Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:34:26 - herewith a
document detailing the five studies that show ill-health effects from masts. This info is on the main info page on my website.
Clearly not all scientists are happy about the actions of the regulatory and protection agencies provided with taxpayers
money to fulfil their role. Read on for an examination of this disreputable state of affairs including the ‘International
Committee for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection’, ICNIRP, who are quoted by politicians and industry representatives
at the drop of a hat to confuse us into being reassured that everything is looked after by those who understand these complicated
matters You get the picture?
For those who have followed this scientific summary up to here we now depart from merely summarising to offer rather more
detailed examination, plus a little more on ‘proper’ science.
Dr Grahame Blackwell again:
OR
By: Dr Grahame Blackwell
The Government, and their ‘Watchdog’ the NRPB, make a big deal of the fact that all mast installations comply
with ICNIRP Guidelines. A short time ago an NRPB spokesman declared that tests in school grounds had shown in all cases that
nearby masts were not exceeding those guidelines, claiming that all the pupils in those schools were therefore safe from health
risks from those masts. The only ‘protection’ offered by the Government to the British public from mast health
risks is ICNIRP certification. Government Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 states:
“If a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary
for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further
the health aspects and concerns about them.”
Unfortunately, the ICNIRP Guidelines themselves explicitly state:
“these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles,
shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy
during exposure to EMF.
In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available
data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions” (My emphasis)
In other words the guidelines are based essentially on thermal (heat-based) effects, the tendency of microwaves to raise temperature
- the effect used in microwave ovens. There is a saying among those whose minds are closed to any other possible effects:
“If it can’t heat you, it can’t hurt you”. It’s fair to say that none of
the many scientists who have concerns about mast health safety seriously believe that any mast emits power at levels high
enough to cause heat damage to human cells (although other effects can at times give rise to burning sensations - that’s
a different matter). As ICNIRP make clear in their statement highlighted above, their Guidelines (and thus ICNIRP Certification)
give absolutely no protection against any possible long-term effects.
Peer-reviewed research studies have now shown the existence of non-thermal effects with long-term consequences at levels well
below ICNIRP guidelines, some of which match observed symptoms near masts. Two examples (references at bottom of page) are:
1. Weakening of the blood-brain barrier.
This allows toxins in the bloodstream to pass into brain cells, leading to headaches and nausea - as observed round masts
(and potentially large-scale brain damage in the longer term);
2. Reduction in nighttime melatonin production.
Melatonin is a sleep regulator and anti-cancer agent, so a reduction in levels leads to sleep disorders and increased incidence
of cancer - as observed round masts.
Assurances based on low power levels are irrelevant in these cases, which arise from totally different effects – an
analogy would be if one were to dismiss the risk from a razor blade because it wasn’t very heavy. The totally logical
conclusion from this is that a very real health risk exists, from which the public is offered absolutely no protection by
Government policy.
The Watchdog (the NRPB, now the HPA/RPD) seems to many people to be more concerned about watching out for any research studies
showing health risks, so that it can leap on them and ‘disprove’ them, than it is in seriously watching out for
the health of the British people. Strangely, such ‘disproving’ often takes the form of saying that since there’s
no known cause-and-effect mechanism by which they can easily explain the observations it’s questionable whether they
really happen. In a totally new field, such as the large-scale irradiation of populations with a new form of periodically-varying
(pulsed) emissions it’s highly likely that effects will be observed that have never been seen before, especially with
something as complex as a living organism. The truly scientific response to such observations is not “Hmm, that’s
odd, must be an experimental error” (particularly when you’re evaluating the work of some other highly-respected
researcher - you can take it that they have taken great care to ensure this is not the case before they publish their work).
The truly scientific response - especially where people’s health is concerned - is to investigate further into what
might be causing this previously unseen effect. That has been the basis of all scientific progress down through the centuries.
There are none so blind as those who don’t want to look.
Another fundamental rule of groundbreaking science is Look For The Obvious. There are often very clear clues for those
prepared to follow them - if they are genuinely interested in finding out the facts, rather than just proving themselves right
or fitting the facts into a predetermined agenda*. Non-thermal effects of electromagnetic radiation (such as mast emissions)
is a good example of this. There are clear links in a chain that are blindingly obvious to the truly objective researcher,
ways ahead that cry out to be investigated - if the truth is the real objective.
F’rinstance:
One widely experienced effect in proximity to masts is the phenomenon of microwave hearing - clicks and buzzes with no apparent
cause. An associated effect is ‘the hum’ (self-explanatory). Some people even get ear infections which they associate
directly with living near a mast.
Now in the Stewart Report, Section 5 paragraphs 12 through to 26 detail the sort of requirements that might have to apply
in order for an electromagnetic field to directly affect biological tissue – living cells. Nowhere in these paragraphs
is the possibility considered of any form of crystalline deposit which might provide the ‘missing link’ between
electromagnetic radiation and biological effects. It’s interesting to note, though, that paragraph 18 does refer to
a suggestion by Frohlich that a biological system might behave in some way like a radio receiver, amplifying a very small
signal through a process of resonance; this idea is dismissed due to the unlikelihood of biological material resonating in
this way – but of course one of the earliest types of radio was the ‘crystal set’, in which a mineral crystal
was made to resonate (by tuning with a ‘cats whisker’) with an incoming radio wave, which is simply an electromagnetic
wave of rather lower frequency than microwaves.
So what’s all this got to do with microwave hearing? Well, as a body entrusted with guarding the public’s health
ought to know, the inner ear contains a substantial number of tiny crystals known as ’otoliths’, or ‘otoconia’.
What is more, research has shown that these crystals are piezoelectric - that is, they respond physically to electrical fields.
As if any more clues were needed, the Stewart Report states explicitly, in para. 5.6, that any biological effect from mobile
phones is likely to be from the electrical fields.
So: we have an effect people are physically experiencing around masts; we have a possible causal connection via crystals that
respond to electrical fields; we have an official Report that says that any such effect is likely to be caused by the electrical
fields in the emissions.
What we don’t seem to have is any research to investigate this screamingly obvious possible cause-and-effect. Do we
actually have a Watchdog that wants to know??
F’rinstance 2:
Two years ago a fascinating research paper was published in the journal BioElectromagnetics, by researchers in Chemical Engineering
and Molecular Physics. Now I may be unusual, but it seems to me that BioElectromagnetics is exactly where it’s at if
you want to know about effects of electromagnetic fields on biological organisms. If our Watchdog, and its counterparts around
the world, aren’t keeping up to speed on publications in that area, what exactly are they being paid for? So we can
reasonably assume they saw that paper.
The paper described how the research group had isolated very large numbers of microscopic crystals from each of a number of
human pineal glands. On the figures they gave, the average pineal gland must contain around 50,000 of these crystals, which
they described as ‘remarkably similar’ to the crystals found in the inner ear. (See a fuller report on this paper
here).
It’s the pineal gland, near the middle of the brain, that is the primary source of melatonin production, known to be
affected by mast emissions - see effect (2) above. This ties in with the symptoms of sleep disturbance and increased incidence
of cancer seen around masts. If these crystals were known to be piezoelectric then the cause-effect chain would be complete.
So what does our Watchdog, and its global counterparts, do? Well of course, in their relentless search for the truth they
will support this research in its next phase of proving these crystals to be piezoelectric, or not, as the case may be. Mobile
Telecommunications Health Research has a real opportunity here to break new ground in our understanding of the effects of
mast emissions on people.
Well, not exactly. Just at the point where they’re ready to test whether these crystals are in fact piezoelectric, and
thus possibly responsible for effects shown in research and experienced by people exposed to mast emissions, funding for this
research group has dried up. Obviously not something the world’s custodians of the public’s health want to know
about. It’s left to the reader to figure out why that might be.
Clue: Who provides funding for the NRPB and the MTHR Programme? And who makes vast amounts of money out of the mobile phone
industry and stands to lose billions if it’s proved unsafe?? Just a thought.
* Of course the Government and the MTHR Programme wouldn’t have a predetermined agenda, their only agenda is to find
out what’s best and safest for the public. No responsible Government would put tens of billions of pounds of licensing
fees and tens of billions of pounds of annual tax revenue above the health, safety and welfare of its electorate.
Why, then, might Professor Lawrie Challis, Head of the MTHR Programme, have said as quoted here: “The Government
want us to say that these masts are completely safe and aren’t dangerous, but we can’t say that.” ??
Of all people, he must surely know that to have decided in advance what you want research to prove renders that research totally
invalid. In order to be of any value, research must be totally unbiased, with no prior intention as to what you want it to
prove.
Research References For Two Non-Thermal Effects
1. Weakening of Blood-Brain Barrier
The classic work on this is:
Title:
Clearly invalidates ICNIRP ‘safety’ guidelines, as used by HM Gov’t – read on:
Powerwatch:
“Now we have both a possible mechanism (leakage of large molecules such as albumin through the blood-brain barrier)
and direct evidence of neuronal death in rats. This occurred at 2 mW/kg SAR level .... mobile phones are allowed (ICNIRP)
to put up to 1000 times this SAR (2000 mW/kg or 2 W/kg) into the user's head! Extensive brain cell death was seen by an exposure
level of 20 mW/kg for just one two hour period. All mobile phone use with the phone held next to your ear will cause at least
this level of microwave exposure to your brain cells - most phones can put more than 200 mW/kg into your brain cells when
they are working.”
2. Melatonin reduction at night.
A couple of relevant papers:
Authors
Burch JB, Reif JS, Noonan CW, Ichinose T, et al.
Title
Melatonin metabolite excretion among cellular telephone users
Journal
Int J Radiat Biol 2002;78:1029-1036
Authors
Jarupat S, Kawabata A, Tokura H, Borkiewicz A.
Title
Effects of the 1900 MHz electromagnetic field emitted from cellular phone on nocturnal melatonin secretion
Journal
J Physiol Anthropol 2003; 22:61-63.
Note that two frequently-observed conditions among those living near phone masts are:
(a) Sleep disruption
This arrives with us on the 13/03/05, this is a frontier of rapidly moving science, you might imagine our paid regulators
keep abreast of, as that is their job, but how can we prevent them from ignoring it at our peril.
This is a recent article on electrical pollution that was printed in the Vancouver Sun, a Canadian newspaper.
Communicated to us by Shivani Arjuna
Dr Magda Havas, had spent several years examining the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the Toronto area. After her
results were published, she received a call from a parent in Toronto who said her daughter suffered from electrical sensitivity.
The girl had just switched schools and was becoming sick every afternoon. The mother had read research out of Wisconsin involving
dairy cows and about a filter that could neutralize the dirty power. She had convinced the school to install them. Would Havas
be interested in conducting an experiment there? "I actually didn't think the filters would work," says
Havas, who had heard a little about the dairy cows in Wisconsin but was sceptical of the efficacy of the filters. "I did
the study fully expecting not to get any results. But I was absolutely amazed."
The filters, developed by computing science and electrical engineering professor emeritus Dr. Martin Graham, of the University
of California-Berkeley, and Dave Stetzer, a power quality expert from Wisconsin, are called the Graham Stetzer filters. Up
to 20 are needed in a home to filter out the dirty power. The study involved three weeks with the filters in every classroom
from K-12 and three weeks without them. The teachers did not know their purpose, but in daily surveys they reported an average
of 55 per cent improvement in their levels of energy and well-being. They had fewer headaches, fewer body aches and felt
they were accomplishing more in the classroom.
Since conducting that experiment, Havas has dedicated much of her time to additional tests measuring the levels of dirty electricity
in many settings. "I haven't been in any building that doesn't have dirty electricity," she says, adding even her own
home had levels higher than recommended. According to studies conducted in the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is surprisingly
ahead of the industrial world in studying this phenomenon, levels higher than 50 GS units are unsafe. The Kazakhstani scientists
based this on studies using chicken eggs exposed to varying levels. They found abnormalities in fetuses at levels 50 units
and higher. Havas's home showed levels ranging from 300 GS units to 800.And after conducting trials with people living with
MS, Havas believes levels should be below 30. "This is so earth shattering," Havas says.
Bowling installed filters in his two-bedroom condo, reducing his levels to from 400 to below 30 and found he could suddenly
sleep through the night, something he had been unable to do for years. After seeing the results of the filters himself and
seeing the results of Havas's trials, he agreed to sell them in the Vancouver area.
But if dirty power is so hazardous, why do so many of us live and work in electrically polluted areas without suffering any
consequences?
Havas says two conditions much exist before a person would experience the ill effects. The first is the existence of dirty
power. There is no shortage of that. The second is a sensitivity to it. "Not everyone responds to it," she says, adding
a study
in Sweden where people self-diagnosed a sensitivity, two to three per cent of the population said they experience problems
when exposed to environments with dirty power. But Havas estimates the real number of people with electrical sensitivity to
varying degrees, is closer to 30 per cent of the population, but that they attribute it to other factors such as stress, or
psychological problems. With no funding for her research, Havas has no inbred bias to her research, but lack of funding has
also meant she has not been able conduct double blind studies. Still, when the filters were installed in the homes of people
with
MS or diabetes, about 60 per cent of them experienced considerable physical improvement, she says.
One of her subjects was Brad Blumbergs, 28, who was diagnosed with progressive MS when he was 25. When Havas met him, he could
not walk without a cane or railings. Since his diagnosis, he had lost 30 pounds and looked, said Havas,
like a drug addict. Havas installed 14 filters in his home and within three days he reported walking unaided. Two weeks later,
Havas returned to videotape Blumbergs and was shocked at his improvements. When she arrived, he was shovelling snow from the
driveway. He could walk forwards and backwards and did a little dance for the camera. "You can't even tell he has MS,"
she says, adding she has seen similar results from others with M.S.
Although she has not tested her hypothesis, Havas theorizes that the dirty power affects them so strongly because the sheath
around certain nerves in people with MS have been destroyed. The sheath is like the insulating coating on electrical wires.
When the sheath is destroyed, the nerve cells come in direct contact with the body fluids. "So any kind of electrical signal
will affect the unprotected nerve." Havas likened this to a lamp that has had holes cut into its cord. If the cord is
then placed in salty water, similar to the body's fluids and the lamp turned on, the electricity leaks out into the water.
"With MS, the electricity is leaking out into surrounding tissue in the brain and spinal cord and its causing signals to get
mixed up."
Havas found equally dramatic results when she tested the effects of thefilter on people with types I and II diabetes and with
people who are pre-diabetic. One 80 year old woman with type I diabetes who required insulin injections twice a day had very
high fasting plasma glucose levels averaging 9.4 millimoles per litre. One week after installing the filters at her son's
insistence, her levels dropped to 6.4 mmoles/L. "That is huge," says Havas. The amount of insulin she required also
dropped significantly. "What was really fascinating with her," says Havas, "is that whenever she spent a day at
the shopping mall or the casino, her blood sugar levels shot up. You can imagine how dirty a casino would be with all the
slot machines," she added.
Havas says Canada allows very high levels of high frequency radiation, but other countries such as Russia, China, and the
Eastern bloc countries insist on lower levels. In Sweden, electrical sensitivity is a recognized health condition and people
suffering from it can claim disability insurance. Last October,the World Health Organization held a conference on the issue
in Prague at which Havas spoke. She told delegates that her results were dramatic and warrant further investigation.
"If they are representative of what is happening worldwide, then dirty electricity is adversely affecting the lives of millions
of people," she concluded.
From www.Good Health Info.net under the ‘Health Effects of Microwave Radiation’ we find the European Parliament
takes a view and says:
“The public is now understandably wary of safety assurances from “official” government scientific sources
w.r.t. [with regard to] electromagnetic pollution. This skepticism is enhanced when views contrary to official perceived wisdom
are, at worst silenced or, at best, studiously ignored.”
March 2001 report by the European Parliament STOA
We’re all participating in a giant experiment in involuntary epidemiology—irradiated by cell phones and towers,
cordless phones, satellites, broadcast antennas, military and aviation radar, TVs, computers, wireless internet, wireless
LANs in schools and the workplace, and now these meters, waiting to see what it does to us.
Actually, we know what it does to us, so the results shouldn’t come as any surprise.
The main problem isn’t cancer, although the industry would like you to believe that, because then they can pull out
statistics showing how infrequently it occurs as a result of low-level radiation. Cancer takes a long time to develop. Typically,
other problems show up first: neurological, reproductive, and cardiac. Problems with severe headaches, sleep disturbances,
memory loss, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, and infertility show up long before cancer. When cancer does
appear, it’s typically brain tumors, leukaemia, and lymphoma.
Here are a few things to keep in mind about the health effects of microwave radiation:
1. Effects at low levels can be more noticeable than at higher levels.
The existence of a “window effect” is well documented, in which effects occur at certain frequencies and
power densities but not at those immediately above or below them. However, it’s not as simple as just mapping these
frequencies and power levels, because the local geomagnetic field and individual susceptibility also influence the result.
Following are a few examples of the nonlinear nature of the effects, from Arthur Firstenberg’s book 'Microwaving Our
Planet' (see bottom of page for information). In each case, emphasis has been added:
Firstenberg points out (p. 41) that “calcium ion efflux from brain tissue is extremely sensitive to irradiation with
radiofrequency waves.” He cites four studies and a literature review. In particular, a 1986 study by Dutta
et al. at 915 MHz and various exposure levels showed that “The effect at 0.0007 mW/g SAR [specific absorption rate]
was quadruple the effect at 2.0 mW/g, in other words 3000 times the intensity had 4 times less of an effect under these particular
conditions.” Looking at it the other way, an intensity three thousand times lower had an effect four times greater.
Firstenberg describes a number of studies on microwave radiation and blood cells. In one, “Chiang et al. (1989) in
their epidemiological study found that white blood cell phagocytosis was stimulated by chronic exposure to the lowest intensities
of radio waves and inhibited, sometimes severely, by higher intensities. . . . Exposure levels ranged from 0–4 mW/cm2
to 120 mW/cm2.” (p. 22)
The September 2000 newsletter of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, 'No Place To Hide', reported on some studies
presented at the June 2000 European Parliament meeting on mobile phones and health. In one presentation, Dr. Lebrecht
von Klitzing, of the Medical University of Lubeck, Germany, said, “Some people become ill at power densities of less
than 10 nanowatts/cm2. . . . Small children are very sensitive to these emitters, down to field densities of 1 nanowatt/cm2.”
2. Another effect independent of power level is resonance, which occurs at certain frequency ranges where the wavelength is
near the size of a body part. An example is the 900 Mhz range, which has a wavelength of approximately one foot—a size
that can cause resonance in a child’s head (because some of the radiation is absorbed, and the wavelength decreases).
This intensifies the biological effect.
3. Pulsed radiation, of the type produced by these meters, is more harmful at the cellular level than continuous-wave. The
meters emit pulses twice in two seconds, although the interval is random.
4. Studies are typically done for short exposure periods at higher intensities, because running studies longer costs more
money. This allows the industry to claim that few studies have been done that show effects for long-term, low-level exposure
and that “nonthermal” effects do not exist. But public health scientists point out that duration is also important,
and long-term, low-level exposure can have equivalent effects.
5. The effects of radiation are cumulative, in both senses. The meters add to the cumulative radiation as sources proliferate,
and microwave radiation is cumulative in sense of increasing the body’s sensitivity over time. Research shows that test
subjects don’t always recover completely and that subsequent exposures can cause effects at lower levels.
6. There are no longer any control groups, because we are now exposed to so much radiation. Alasdair Phillips points out the
problem in an email to the Roy Beavers list (archived on the Library page at www.wave-guide.org),
Recently an American epidemiologist, Dr Sam Milham, re-analysed Doll’s own data presented in his 1956 (Doll & Hill)
paper which showed that heavy smokers were 23.7 times more likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers. However when you
compare the figures for heavy smokers vs light and moderate ones the ORs [odds ratios] fall to 3.5 and 1.9. When you compare
light smokers with moderate ones you get an OR of only 1.8.
7. Even in full studies, sometimes the abstract and/or conclusion may not accurately reflect the study’s data, especially
if the industry was involved or the researcher is concerned about funding.
For example, Kathleen Thurmond, M.D., in a 1999 talk, said,
9) Dr. Ross Adey
Dr. Henry Lai was quoted in the London Times as saying, “They are asking me to change my whole interpretation
of the findings in a way that would make them more favorable to the mobile phone industry. This is what happened in the tobacco
industry. They had data in their hands but when it was not favorable they did not want to disclose it.”
The European Parliament report says,
“[A] relatively recent reanalysis of the Lilienfeld report on the Moscow US Embassy irradiation during the ‘cold’
war, based on information that only became fully available following the Freedom of Information Act . . . reveals that the
original verdict of no serious health effects was, in fact, a sanitised version of Lilienfeld’s findings, in which his
statements of concern had been deliberately removed by the State Department.”
Alternatives to reading every study include abstracts, books or reports that summarize the research, and capsule descriptions
of studies in tabular format. Following are some sources for each of these:
10) Dr. Henry Lai,
Dr. Henry Lai, who is quoted above being asked to change his research results is a well-known bioelectromagnetics researcher
at the University of Washington, Seattle, he has compiled a 97-page collection of abstracts from studies conducted between
1995 and 2000. The list, in pdf format, can be found on the Research page of the EMR Network’s web site. As the web
site points out, “80% of these studies demonstrate some kind of biological effect.”www.electric-words contains abstracts of many studies.
Potential and Actual Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation at Levels Near and Below 2 uW/cm2, is a 200-page
report by Dr. Neil Cherry, of Lincoln University, New Zealand. The introduction says, “Strong claims by industry
representatives and their consultants that there is no scientific evidence to justify the public’s fears is scientifically
demonstrably wrong.”
An April 2001 press release by the ECOLOG-Institut, in Hanover, Germany, says that the institute’s report on cellular
microwave exposure presents “the results and recommendations of the comprehensive study carried out by order of the
German T-Mobil, in which physicists, medical scientists, and biologists took part.” (The press release and study
are available in German on the Institute’s web site.)
There are a number of scientific findings from investigations on sub-populations with an elevated exposition to high frequency
electromagnetic fields and from animal experiments that have to be taken seriously. These findings point to a cancer-promoting
effect of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by cellular telephone technology. Experiments on cell cultures yielded
clear evidence for geno-toxic effects of these fields, like DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes, so that even a cancer-initiating
effect cannot be excluded any longer.
The findings that high frequency electro-magnetic fields influence cell transformation, cell promotion and cell communication
also point to a carcinogenic potential of the fields used for cellular telephony. Moreover disturbances of other cellular
processes, like the synthesis of proteins and the control of cell functions by enzymes, have been demonstrated.
In numerous experiments on humans as on animals influences on the central nervous system were proven, which reach from neuro-chemical
effects to modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain functions. The latter effects for instance
have been demonstrated by animal experiments and e.g. showed up as deficits in the ability to learn simple tasks when exposed
to the fields. From experiments with volunteers, who were exposed to the fields of mobile telephones, there is clear evidence
for influences on certain cognitive functions. Possible risks for the brain also arise from an increased permeability of the
blood-brain barrier to potentially harmful substances, observed in several experiments on animals exposed to mobile telephone
fields.
The scientist at the ECOLOG-Institute also found some evidence for disturbances of the hormone and the immune system. High
frequency electromagnetic fields cause stress reactions, showing up in an increased production of stress hormones in experimental
animals and they lead to a reduction of the concentration of the hormone melatonin in the blood of exposed animals. The latter
finding is important, because melatonin has a central control function for the hormone system and the diurnal biological rhythms
and it is able to retard the development of certain tumours.
11) Dr. Peter Neitzke
Dr. Peter Neitzke, coordinator of the institute’s working group, says this:
80 per cent of the papers published in scientific journals do not contribute anything to the evaluation of possible health
risks due to the electromagnetic fields emitted by cellular telephones and their base stations. The remainder however, on
which our assessment relies, is made so good and is in itself so consistent that we must take the findings referring to health
risks seriously. In order to improve the protection of the public against the possibly harmful effects of the electromagnetic
fields from cellular telephones and their base stations, we need much lower precautionary standards. . . .” [Italics
added.]
The report says, “The ECOLOG-institute recommends not to exceed a precautionary standard of 0,01 W/m2 [ = 1 microwatt
per square centimeter] when siting cellular telephone base stations in the proximity of dwellings, schools, kindergartens,
hospitals, and similarly sensitive uses.”
12) Dr. Neil Cherry
In a commentary to this, Dr. Neil Cherry, a well-known EMF researcher in New Zealand, says, “The actual expose levels
at which these genetic effects are shown are about 0.5 to 1.2 microWatt/sq cm. These are not safe levels, they are just experimental
levels that show that at extremely low experimental levels genotoxic response occur—cell-by-cell. There is no safe
threshold.”
In other words, the maximum level the ECOLOG-Institute recommends is already the level at which, as Dr. Cherry points out,
genetic effects occur. This also happens to be about the same exposure level from a cell-phone tower with a single set of
antennas, sometimes as much as 1000 feet away or more, depending on terrain, obstructions, signal strength, etc. When another
telecom with the same signal strength colocates on the tower, the radiation increases.
A list of about two dozen studies on low-level microwaves, compiled by Cindy Sage, a consultant on EMF mitigation, can be
found on the Library page at www.wave-guide.org. The list is grouped by exposure level (from .1 to 120 mW/cm2) and SAR (Specific
Absorption Rate).
As part of his Radio Wave Packet, Arthur Firstenberg, president of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, has created a list of about
40 studies grouped by exposure level, beginning as low as 10–13 mW/cm2 and extending to 10 mW/cm2. Therefore, it has
little overlap with Cindy Sage’s list and is more applicable to the levels encountered with microwave meters and cell
towers. It also includes Soviet and Russian research.
Arthur Firstenberg has also written a book,"Microwaving Our Planet" (currently out of print), with brief descriptions
of studies grouped by the affected system (nervous, reproductive, heart, respiratory, etc.) and, under each system, by whether
the study was done on humans, animals, or cells.
ES-UK adds: on a personal note not everyone is aware that Arthur Firstenberg is a brave pioneer in this field, of necessity.
He became ill as a medical student decades ago and was forced to diagnose himself as EHS. He has since strived, as his life’s
purpose, to alert the American, and indeed global, public to the inherent dangers to human health in this technology. As it
has become increasingly pervasive with “No Where To Hide”, the title of his book, he has been forced to
withdraw to increasingly remote locations to escape the effects from sickening him. He has not been heard of for some time
as we write in spring 2005, the worst is feared.
Time constraints are upon us, copied here is our old media page.
Requests for interviewee sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, EHS, reveal ignorance on the part of those well-meaning
researchers who simply think it is about sticking a victim up in front of a microphone or camera and interrogating away.
Onset is subtle, difficult to detect, not discrete and easily identifiable. Usually it is characterised by non-specific symptoms
like headaches, irritability, sleeping difficulties, fatigue, loss of concentration and short-term memory. Also flu-type symptoms,
sniffles, sore throat, muscle and joint pains. All these are indications of loss of well-being and homeostasis, energy is
being diverted to counter environmental stresses, the immune system is working hard to repel and repair invasion. Other factors
come into play, multiple chemical allergies, toxins, stress, diet, mood, life chances, relationships and frequently isolation.
There is a large cumulative element, stuff builds up and a tipping point is reached, the individual’s systems are overwhelmed,
it becomes chronic, breakdown ensues. OR ameliorative steps reverse the worst of the debilitation, energy levels improve,
depression lifts work is possible, and with great care a virtuous cycle of improvement slowly builds. Environmental illness
is ongoing, to do with constant re-adjustment.
Those on a downswing are too ill and cannot cope with exposure, energy-sapping studio electromagnetic fields, travel and publicity
and so on. Those in a recovery phase are reluctant to jeopardise it, weeks and months of careful planning and behaviour just
to feel roughly normal are put at risk. Attending worthwhile scientific conferences we see the effects on some
brave EHS attendees, days perhaps weeks to get back afterwards to where they were. One lady made three attempts to attend
an EHS conference in Wimpole Street by different means of transport before failing, depressingly. Withdrawal and isolation
are common reactions, no phones, no TV, no travel, no chemically emitting papers or even sunlight for some, it can be horrendous,
catastrophic. There is even shame and guilt often unwittingly provoked by the disbelieving nearest and dearest aided and abetted
by ill-informed doctors and arrogant psychiatrists. Suicides occur but what is on the death certificate? Animals are also
affected with disturbance to migration patterns milking yields and more.
All the above can be seen as over-simplification. Our paradigmatic view of illness for a hundred years since Louis
Pasteur has focused on germ-causation instead of his rival’s view. Claude Bernard was vehement it was actually the ‘milieu’
or terrain, the environment or ecology we say today. The pneumonia bacterium lives in your throat, mine, and everyone’s,
but multiplies without restraint only when our own defences have become compromised, then you get pneumonia. Cancer is similar;
saying EHS causes cancer or pneumonia is too facile but it’s in there, both as background and foreground. Our focus
has to shift, like the old optical illusion of twin candlesticks, to keep both perspectives plus awareness of complex interactions
from the multi-factorial processes engaged in any individual. There is uniqueness and commonality, genetic pre-disposition
and gross life incidents like electric shocks, and an awful lot to learn once we progress from the 'deny and delay' strategy
the mighty influence of these huge industries persists in to our detriment. There is work to be done to cope with the side-effects
of the enormous genie we have unbottled and whose advantages we enjoy.
19/01/05 Science from Dr Neil Cherry and Panayis Zambellis now on Science and References page, but well down, we will
anchor it when there is time.Science and References
17/01/05
Our report to and about the WHO workshop is now online. Find it in our menu or click here
12/01/05 Well well, two cheers for Sir Bill Stewart the governments safety advisor in chief who is today reiterating
his concerns about the unpublicised risks attached to mobile phone technology. All on www.nrpb.org/press/press_releases/2005/press_release_02_05.htm Or scroll down to EXTRACTS below. He points to Swedish research by Anders Aalblohm (we'll spell it right eventually)
showing interference with cognitive functioning, that's thinking and reasoning to most of us, and to German research indicating
cancer-clusters around base stations, that's phone masts to you and me. Other stuff too.
Of course its not conclusive, little environmental science ever is, there are just so many variables and confusers, not least
industry hired scientists employed to do just that!
Asserting himself in opposition to the massed millions of the phone companies Sir Bill, and Professor Lawrie me-too Challis
as well, insist they will not allow their grandchildren to have mobiles, as though unproven, (naturally), the risks are too
great.
Due to the size of head and thickness of childrens skulls, microwave radiation penetration is easier. Also their cells are
growing and forming at a more rapid rate plus they will likely use phones over a longer period starting earlier as they are.
Add all these up and it equals greater risk of developing something horrible way down the road as we keep saying. Of course
many mobile phone company executives will be long retired by then. Swanning in one of their holiday homes with huge pensions
and able to say
EXTRACTS from press release of NRPB and Health Protection Agency
Third, because the use of mobile phone technologies is a fairly recent phenomenon, it has not yet been possible to carry out
necessary long-term epidemiological studies and evaluate the findings. However, an increase in the risk of acoustic neuromas
has recently been reported in people in Sweden with more than ten years' use of mobile phones. This study has been able to
obtain long-term follow-up data and highlights the need for extended follow-up studies on phone users, as has been noted in
a number of reviews (see AGNIR, 2003). Epidemiological studies, because of a lack of sensitivity, may miss any effects
in small subsets of the general populations studied. This is a reason why the Board welcomes the large international cohort
study proposed for support by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme (see paragraph 89). A recent
German study has also suggested concerns.
Fourth, a recent paper has suggested possible effects on brain function resulting from the use of 3G phones, although the
study has some limitations and needs replication. The Stewart Report had previously identified the need for research on brain
function.
Fifth, populations are not homogeneous and people can vary in their susceptibility to environmental and other challenges.
There are well-established examples in the literature of the genetic predisposition of some groups that could influence sensitivity
to disease. This remains an outstanding issue in relation to RF exposure and one on which more information is needed. A number
of people also report symptoms they ascribe to electromagnetic hypersensitivity arising from exposure to a range of electromagnetic
fields (EMFs) encountered in everyday life. There is concern by an increasing number of individuals, although relatively small
in relation to the total UK population, that they are adversely affected by exposure to RF fields from mobile phones (see
also paragraphs 58?64).
Sixth, IEGMP considered that children might be more vulnerable to any effects arising from the use of mobile phones because
of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure.
Data on the impact on children have not yet been forthcoming. The potential for undertaking studies to examine any possible
effects on children, however, are limited for ethical reasons.
Seventh, there are ongoing concerns in the UK about the use of Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) by the police and the nature
of the signals emitted as well as about exposures to RF from other telecommunications technologies.
Eighth, there remain particular concerns in the UK about the impact of base stations on health, including well-being. Despite
current evidence which shows that exposures of individuals are likely to be only a small fraction of those from phones, they
may impact adversely on well-being. The large numbers of additional base stations which will be necessary to effectively roll
out the 3G and other new networks are likely to exacerbate the potential impact. People can also be concerned about effects
on property values when base stations are built near their homes.
The Board believes that the main conclusions reached in the Stewart Report in 2000 still apply today and that a precautionary
approach to the use of mobile phone technologies should continue to be adopted.
PROGRESS MADE IN ADDRESSING PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
The recommendation in the Stewart Report to adopt a precautionary approach was immediately accepted by government. It also
endorsed many of the other recommendations in the Report.
The Stewart Report made a number of other recommendations that were designed to provide more information about the operation
of mobile phones and base stations and to address public concerns about this technology. This sought to allow individuals,
local communities and local authorities to make informed choices about how the technology should be developed. END OF
STEWART REPORT EXTRACTS
Two scientists email rap,
and the important thing is to get the message out. This affects us all, some of us as neighbours, THROUGH BRICK WALLS.
Anyway, Don Maisch the EMF expert kicked it off in the land of Oz and Lloyd Morgan of the US federal Brain Tumour Registry
in California interpolates his findings. This is breaking kitchen table science as it unfolds. Don, please see my
responses within your text below.
In a message dated 1/5/2006 3:29:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, weblog@emfacts.com writes:
About a year ago I received two RF meters designed by Alasdair Philips from Powerwatch in the UK that have proved very useful
in determining RF levels in various environments. One is the Acousti-COM (A-COM) Monitor that gives an audible noise to detect
the presence of microwave emissions and whether they are pulsed or not. The other is the COM Monitor that measures exposure
levels in volts per meter (0.7 to 6.5 v/m). Last November I used them to test several wireless laptops, and their base stations
and found emission levels quite low, at least for the two models tested.
[Lloyd: I have taken some very cursory measurements at a local coffee house with Wi-Fi access and also found quite low emission
levels. Because it was just a glance, it is not a definitive finding. Wi-Fi transmissions have about the same power as a cellphone.
I'm not sure what power level that laptop wireless modems emit but it is likely to be roughly the same power as the Wi-Fi
stations themselves.
As with all EMF sources, proximity is every thing, as the field decrease as the square of the distance from the source. Both
ends, the Wi-Fi station and the laptop are EMF radiation sources. Logically, a user of the laptop is likely to get a larger
exposure from the laptop than from the Wi-Fi station dependent on the location of the Wi-Fi station. I would certainly avoid
having the laptop on my lap when using a wireless modem.
Cellphones and DECT phones (see below) will expose people to EMFs that are orders of magnitudes higher than the Wi-Fi or wireless
modems, not because they emit less power but because the distance of the cellphone or the DECT phone is much shorter (again
the impact of the inverse square law) to the user.]
They have also been used to test for microwaves in a Darwin legal office, a Hobart office space and to test the effectiveness
of wire netting screening in a Brisbane office building facing a nearby (70 meters) array of antennas at the same elevation
(levels were about 3.5 V/m before screening). I also used them in Sydney last year around several base stations and found
ground levels generally under 1 Volt per meter in the few places tested.
[Lloyd: If memory serves the Vatican radio leukemia study found that in the region closest to the Vatican radio transmitter
(near Rome, but not in the Vatican) had fields around 4 V/m. The study showed a strong correlation of increased risk of leukemia
with distance from the transmitter. Though a 1 Volt/m reduction is important, this is still a large field relative to normal
ambient fields in major cities.]
Now only today I had the good fortune to pick up a quantity of Telstra DECT cordless phones and took to opportunity to test
each one's base station for emission levels. These are the sort of wireless phone that could easily be placed on a bedside
table or office desk. Very small innocuous looking gadgets.
However when their base station power transformer is plugged into the mains power point my A-COM Monitor ceased emitting a
soft hiss to let out a loud pulsing shrill that pulsed continously for the whole time the base station was energised - not
just when the phone is being used. Then using the COM Monitor, I was hitting the red zone at 4 V/m at 1/2 a meter from the
base station that cradles the phone when not in use. At this distance one's head could well be exposed to this level all night
long if placed on the bedside table, or for the working day in the office if on the desk. As for any warnings in the instruction
pamphlet, all it states is: " Make sure it is at least 1 metre away from other electrical products to avoid interference."
[Lloyd: DECT phones are based on cellphone technology. As a result, just like cellphones they are on when in "standby" mode
as well as when they are being used to talk to someone. Cordless phones here in the US are quite diffrent. When in "standby"
more US cordless phones are not transmitting.
Here is a summary of Hardell's DECT phone findings re the risk of brain tumors:
1) Risk of meningioma, >5 to 10 years of use, >243 cumulative hours of use (243 hours is the median hours of use), OR=1.6;
For >10 years of use, OR=2.3.
It would have been nice to see a warning against placing the base station by a bedhead but everybody knows the stuff is perfectly
safe as long as you are not an electrical product - right?
[Lloyd: The dose from non-ionizing radiation is the absorbed power in Watts per kilogram of tissue absorbing the power (also
known as Specific Absorption Rate or SAR) multiplied by the time in seconds. The dose units are the total energy absorbed
over time per kilogram of tissue in joules per kilogram. The international scientific name for joules per kilogram is Gray
(Gy) and is the same units used to measure X-ray and radioactivity doses.
There is every reason to believe from a careful reading of the cellphone/cordless phone studies and the X-ray (particularly
the Israeli study of children cured of scalp ringworm by X-ray therapy) and A-bomb exposure studies, that cellphones/cordless
phones are far more brain tumorgenic than X-rays or radioactivity exposures.]
Perhaps this is the stuff of nightmares?
[Lloyd: Nightmares are an understatement. Given the ubiquitous use of cellphones, I foresee the largest human pandemic since
the black plagues of the 13th century. And, far greater than the potential pandemic from avian flu.
How could we at ES-Support improve on this? If it was our desire to scaremonger we could not express the health risks more
strongly. Stuff is being foisted on willing consumers entirely ignorant of the risks they are running. We do not believe
the companies selling it are so entirely ignorant, whoever their scientific advisors are, if they even have any, they should
not be, but as we always say along with Upton Sinclair
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”.
|
|
Enter supporting content here
|